Simon Busuttil and his merry men and women must be very pleased with the way things turned out at the European Parlia­ment in mid-week. Though Joseph Muscat points out to the mitigation of the motion, which originally seemed obsessed with Malta, there is no doubt that it was an embarrasing outcome for the government. In the process, Busuttil and his two MEPs tainted Malta’s name.

They deny that, saying it is Muscat and his government who brought all this about with the way the Individual Invest­ment Programme was construc­ted. Yet, protest though they might, there can be no doubt that they did their utmost to expose Malta to as much negative criticism as could be.

That is a replica of what happened in the 1980s, when Opposition Nationalist MPs would go abroad and try to discourage foreign investment from coming to Malta. A matter of the leopard not changing its spots, and all that.

On the other hand, one might also recall that all is fair in love and war. And war is what politics has become since Busuttil was elected leader of the Nationalist Party.

The Individual Investment Programme aside, negativism has been the hallmark of the Oppo­sition, practically on every issue that has come up. In reality, that was all the Nationalists could muster and practise. Trounced at the general election, they are a minority party in search of some character. All their issues sunk with the general election result.

One can say that the Prime Minister gave them an issue with the way the passport-for-foreign­ers scheme was drawn up. The principle is practised elsewhere in the EU and, with all their hurrumphing and fury, the Nationalists implicitly accepted it, arguing only about the price.

But the scheme was too bare and, as originally presented, unacceptable. The government had been given bad advice from the outset. For instance, it was sold with anonymity, probably because that would attract Arab individuals. In an age were transparency is demanded at every turn, that feature was nonsensical. Muscat, at least, was soon persuaded of that, and dropped it.

The asking contribution was also low. That too was modified to a considerable extent. As the debate continued, responsi­bility for stringent due diligence was also clarified. Similarly, the opportunity to Maltese financial operators to market and sell the scheme.

The only feature the government refused to budge upon is a residency require­ment. After all the changes grafted on to the original draft, the scheme still does not require applicants to commit to a min­imum period of residency on the Maltese islands, at least for the first five years from the granting of citizenship.

I reiterate my hope that the government will introduce a residency requirement

That was and remains wrong. Even at this late stage, the Prime Minister and his team should reconsider.

I understand the inclination to say Malta is not governed by the European Par­lia­ment, which merely ex­pressed an opinion, and that the Com­mission has no jurisdiction on citizenship affairs. That is correct and is admitted at the European end.

At that end, the factor that was most stressed was that member countries who promote such schemes – for Malta is not alone in doing that – must adhere to European values.

No definition of such values was offered. They surely rate much more than citizenship and passports. In fact, no such furore was raised in the European Parliament before midweek though visa and citizenship arrangements for third parties have been in operation for years.

Malta’s basic values are no less clear, our commitment to democracy, freedom and the rule of law no less determined than that of the rest of the European Union, and in practice have survived and prevailed even when some members of the Union had buried such basic values 12 feet underground.

Now it is time to move on. I reiterate my hope that the government will introduce a residency requirement. It will not lose face by doing that. Whether it does so or not, the scheme will be promoted. It remains to be seen whether it will achieve the targets that the government’s advisers have told it are feasible. Frankly, I have my doubts, which have nothing to do with what has taken place in the European Parliament.

That institution will not labour on Malta’s Individual Investment Programme for long. It’s atten­tion span is limited.

In any case, the European Parliament will be reconstituted after Union-wide elections in May. Those elections will not give any attention to the invest­ment scheme, or to broader Malta, not even in regard to the continuing challenge of boat people and irregular immi­gration. They will see a number of the current MEPs not contes­ting or losing their seat.

They are also forecast to see a surge by the right and far right of politics, which poses more of a problem to European values than Malta can ever dream up.

Life will go on, but it would be useful if all those concerned learn from their mistakes. Probably it is futile to tell Busuttil and his group that negativity eventually boome­rangs: nega­tivity is the engine of their hoped-for recovery in the polls.

Yet it should not be a waste of time to urge the Labour govern­ment to accept remedies where mistakes are made. To think things through more carefully before committing to them.

Introspection, reflection and humility are values which should be at the heart of all human relations, and certainly at the heart of good government.